Slanted propaganda – what is this doing on a neutrally informative website?
You say “But for Representative Barton, the fundamental right to pollute other people’s air and burn as much fossil fuel as possible is too pressing a concern to give up.”
and use “energy guzzling” etc emotional wording,
which is hardly neutrally and usefully informative, even if the facts were right, which they aren’t
Just to take 3 issues,
The supposed ENERGY savings are not there
(only c.2% grid electricity savings, see the DOE etc referenced data
and even if there were the supposed savings,
there are much more relevant and significant energy savings in Electricity
Generation and Grid Distribution as well as Consumption, as covered on the website.
Moreover – whatever the savings NO coal or other major plant could possibly be saved, for the reasons given on http://ceolas.net/#li172x
As for wasting coal:
Hello? Light bulbs don’t burn coal and they don’t release CO2 gas
Acting on them is not like acting on gasolene -powered cars.
If there’s a problem – Deal with the problem.
Power plants can and will use other (and low emitting) energy sources anyway, emissions can be dealt with directly , and not all policies need take time:
For example if coal use is such a worry: Tax it – that reduces use quickly enough, without running round people’s homes telling them what they can or can’t use.